Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

I see nothing in that about the continuous generation of power. It refers to "continuum light", which apparently means a continuous spectrum vs. one with lines.

Both this and their recent calorimetry results are based on operation in a one-shot mode. They are assuming that no unexpected reactions are occurring that could account for the supposed excess energy. Without actual continuous operation there is a lot of room for measurement/experimental error.

-----
Added: A one-shot reaction that occurs in a very short amount of time produces a lot of power, but not much energy.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input.

They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements?

There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy.

Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation.

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

Also as i recall, they prepare that "silver shot" in a particular fashion. So the energy consumed in simply creating the shot fuel would have to be subtracted from that modest energy output.

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

OOps, that was 80mg of silver, worth about 5 cents. Still, 1kWH would be $36 of silver.

True. Also, "The mean duration of the radiation in the nine tests was about 860 μs" . So, they have 1 MW for less than a millisecond. They blow up a silver shot containing water, with an arc welder, and get some modest energy for a tiny bit of time.

There are a number of very questionable estimations in this measurement, including both the calibration of the UV, and the calibration of the electrical input.

They also claim problems with EM pulses, so have they made sure that isn't affecting their measurements?

There is also the possibility of this just being a scam, but there might be some energy to be had from blowing up silver along with water, in a plasma. AgO doesn't give enough energy to compensate for the H2O hydrolysis (I haven't looked up AgO2), but there may be a Silver Hyroxide compound that would give net energy.

Question, why release the results of a measurement in October 2017 now? There wasn't much analysis done. This could've been done in 2 weeks. This seems like desperation.

Also, they got maybe 1KJ of energy (by their own claims maybe 2KJ, which is probably not reality) out of 80g of silver, worth about $50. Perhaps some of the silver was recoverable as slag, but that is still $10 of silver used up. 1 kWH is worth about 6 cents, but would cost $36,000 of silver. Not a great ROI!

The "paper" linked to is about "experiments" in Feb and March of this year.

Whilst it is, it is also a reset, all those promises of commercial prototypes... oh dear we are back to the beginning again, got to prove the research again...

Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL

Looks like the professional 'talkers up' have been pulled back. I wonder if Mills will use his same old tried and true method - used the last few decades - 'contracts, full production, yadda yadda'. LOL

Well, it has been quite a few years since he "sold" anything to anyone, so he should probably look into scammingselling it to someone else, he's due.

Of course, this will be a bit harder than the last time, what with there not being sky-high oil prices and an economic downturn making people desperate to find cheaper energy.

Perhaps he could try selling it to all the Albertans outraged over the new Canadian Carbon Tax. "Stick it to Justine True-dough's Libtards! They can tax carbon, but they can't tax Hydrinos(TM)*!"

Come to think of it, could you fake up a reason why a Hydrino reaction could cut down on CO2 production? I'm sure there's coal fired plants out there run by morons who would fall for it.

"*because they don't exist...."

__________________Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

I actually got angry reading it. It is so full of B.S. . There is literally zero information on successful energy production - only a few glowy or explody things, and a talk of how they "might" produce energy with the SunCell or Magneto-hydrodynamic generator.

They did go out of their way to say that everything about Hydrinos are now "proved", 100% and conclusively. They are the biggest ***** liars around. The thing is, the number of people in the company that know it is lies, might only be a few people. I bet they have very strong NDAs at the company, preventing any whistle-blowing. I doubt they have many Ph.D.s on staff, either.

As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step.

He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test.

The replies include good examples of how people support cranks and pseudoscience with idiotic arguments.

optiongeek: A "Miils" argument that asserting things about currents in rings magically produces an induced electric field that stabilizes Mills electron as a shell around a nucleus woo.
Rings have the same problem as a shell - they are unstable. Even worse, they repel each other and so a perturbation is more likely to make the "shell" break.

WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data.

As I'm sure the majority here don't follow the subreddit, CSurveyGuy is a physicist who was a frequent poster on the sub, and who spent his time challenging Mills' theory, often by delving in to the maths or where it contradicted known physics, and often would post by taking one element of Mills' book and challenging supporters to show how it was derived, how it followed on from what was already known, and how it led to the next step.

He's currently taking a year away from the forum, but has reappeared just to make the post above, which I think it a great explanation for why physicists don't take Mills' theory seriously, and is a good way to try to get his supporters to look at it in depth and see whether it really passes the smell test.

He gives one such explanation.

Another is that Mills’ predictions - i.e. the values for various parameters - differ from experimentally determined values (many of them anyway), by more than 3 sigma (sometimes by much, much more).

If you accept Mills’ claims at face value, just a single, robust mismatch is enough reason to ignore the whole thing ....

I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist. I got interested in Mills' theory because of the CP approach, so also about the hydrino-related work and the Suncell. I'm quite fascinated about the theory and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, but I'm also quite disturbed about the big late in the so-called "hydrino" energy technologies.

So, my question.

Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet)
And look at the calculations (attach 02).

My own results are that the showed spectra is related to something diatomic, with a bond length of circa 0,36 Ångström, very like the half of a "normal" hydrogen molecule (so also the smallest known molecule).

Had anyone done this calculation yet?
Do you maybe have an other "classical" explanation for this results or the origin of this spectra?

Thank you in advance for any help.
Hope you like my contribution.
* sorry for the italian in the excel frame
Kind regards,
M.M.

WupWup9r: Uses Mills idiocy. Abysmally ignorant assertions about QM makes QM wrong and his woo correct. A delusion that Schrodinger and scientists of his time were "geocentralists"! WupWup9r stupidity that theory should not be driven by data.

He's a weird one. Claims to be an engineer, to work in a lab, to have worked with researchers at top universities, and to have the knowledge/access to equipment to have attempted to build his own hydrino reactor before Mills shut him down, but he's absolutely terrible at critical thinking. Half of what he posts is completely irrelevant to what everybody else is talking about, he's 100% in on the whole "all physicists are deliberately suppressing Mills' research because they earn their living from quantum mechanics being true", will buy wholesale anything said by an authority that agrees with him, and if presented with facts that contradict his beliefs will either come up with convoluted reasons for why those facts cannot be true or are irrelevant, or will completely switch his reasoning on a dime to incorporate those facts while not altering the conclusion that he draws from those facts one iota.

His posts remind me of the worst of the cranks that we've had here over the years who have claimed to be able to disprove Einstein, etc., except that if what he posts is true he actually should be qualified to offer some meaningful commentary rather than being comparable to someone who's just pulled an idea out of the aether and thinks that that's the same thing as doing science.

I mean, it shouldn't surprise me, given what I know about the way the human mind works, but I can't help but have it strike me as odd.

I'm Marco Marchesi from Italy, a chemist. I got interested in Mills' theory because of the CP approach, so also about the hydrino-related work and the Suncell. I'm quite fascinated about the theory and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics, but I'm also quite disturbed about the big late in the so-called "hydrino" energy technologies.

So, my question.

Look at the registered Raman spectra (attached, sorry, I can't post URLs yet)
And look at the calculations (attach 02).

My own results are that the showed spectra is related to something diatomic, with a bond length of circa 0,36 Ångström, very like the half of a "normal" hydrogen molecule (so also the smallest known molecule).

Had anyone done this calculation yet?
Do you maybe have an other "classical" explanation for this results or the origin of this spectra?

Thank you in advance for any help.
Hope you like my contribution.
* sorry for the italian in the excel frame
Kind regards,
M.M.

Hi MarcoM85BG. This thread has been going for a couple of years and Mills previous stupidity with the Raman spectra has been explained before. Mills ignorance of physics has been explained before (frequent ignorant claims that his results cannot come from standard physics when physicists say that they can!).

As a chemist, you will have used scientific instruments. You know that they come with manufacturer's instructions on how to use them to get valid data. You know that if you violate these instructions, you will get invalid results. That is what Mills spent years doing. That is the period where that Raman "spectra" was published.

Your calculations are not for this thread and are based on invalid data as above. The thread is about Mills' calculations, e.g. in Mills' deluded and lying book.

P.S. Raman spectroscopy is "is a spectroscopic technique used to observe vibrational, rotational, and other low-frequency modes in a system". If that spectra were valid the peaks need not come from vibrating hydrogen molecules and especially not from Mills hydrino delusion.

You may not understand how deluded hydrino are, MarcoM85BG, since you seem to believe in Mills theory.

Mills does not have a "CP theory". Mills has assertions with classical physics and cherry picked parts of QM. That includes QM energy levels. What QM says about adding energy levels below the ground state is that the lowest level becomes the ground state. Thus a normal hydrogen atom in Mills' delusion would be in the lowest possible hydrino state. This does not happen in the real world. Mills stops this with a catalyst delusion.

Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
Chemists expect that this is a delusion because they know about chemical bonds and their shapes.

Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
High school science students suspect this is a delusion because they know about the shell theorem. The net force between the shell and nucleus is zero wherever the nucleus is within the shell. Bump the shell and the nucleus is ejected!

Mills has the delusion that a bound election is a atomic sized shell around a nucleus.
The measured size of bound electrons is less than that of a proton!
The upper limit of the radius of an electron is 10-22 meters from considering an electron in a Penning trap.

Mills has the delusion that a free election is some kind of flying disk.
Electrons scattering from each other act like small, spherical particles.

Mills has the delusion that he can arbitrarily add QM features to classical physics.
QM theory includes the experimental observation that quantum particles have intrinsic spin that is impossible in classical physics. Mills merely asserts that electrons have that QM spin.

...and the possibility to finely calculate all the numbers of atom and molecule physics,

Are you aware that all of the maybe hundreds of ionization energies listed in Mills' book are wrong, MarcoM85BG?
Mills even emphasizes this in his tables with % differences from measured values. The possibility of getting correct values is only in Mills head.

Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!

Posts: 31,453

Latest video from BLP?
Maybe an actual HydrinoTM based product on the shelves now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Latest video from BLP?
Maybe an actual HydrinoTM based product on the shelves now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills.

To "Reality Check": really I don't get why my calculations are not for this thread, if the formulas are real, checked and actually applied worldwide. They're from the normal lectures of physical chemistry and I can assure you that at college I saw the instrument giving this kind of spectra, and the given difference in the peaks revealed exactly the bond length of the analized molecule. So they work!

For all the rest you wrote to me, sorry if I gave you the idea that I was a fan. I'm only interested in deepen all the aspect of the most promising new ideas in physics, and obviously, I'm really exited about the new ones about atoms: i MUST deepen. Why Mills is provoking this "anti"fan reaction in you?

In the meanwhile, considering correct the Raman formulas, if you both can help me to check the evidences of why this or these spectras ar false, I really appreciate.

Sorry, I read also your post about the exactness of QM computational models...
I REALLY do not agree: I studied, in deep, for 3 years, computational chemistry. I used ALL the softwares like Gaussian, Spartan, Hyperchem etc making A LOT of calculation (I was quite obsessed about the calculation of the electronic levels of molecules...). I can assure you that also the BEST models (post-HF like B3LYP density functional, Moller Plesset and so on...) CAN'T get you exact energy levels with tiny differencies compared the experimental ones. For molecules, obviously, and not for the simple H atom.
Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT.
We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules.
Greetings
MM

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills.

That's okay. No one else has been able to replicate those results either.

Originally Posted by MarcoM85BG

Yes, we don't know if Mills model is correct, but let me surely give you a very important info: QM MODELS (ALL OF THEM) AREN'T CORRECT.
We MUST find an other, EXACT model for atom and molecules.

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist).

Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work.

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant closed form. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

QM is extremely difficult to calculate exactly. It is much easier to "read the answer" in the back of the book, and come up with empirical formulas (and patterns do exist).

Of course, this won't help you in new situations where the formulas don't work.

That's not an answer to the question you're replying to...

__________________Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

To "The Man": unfortunately I don't have access to any Raman spectrometer and I can't replicate the experiment and meauserements of Mills. My assumption was that the raman spectra was real. So: is it simulated, sketched or something else? Is Mills spending a lot of time sketching false spectra? If so, and if I can be sure of it, I'm leaving the forum right now because there isn't anything interesting in Mills.
<snip>

(my bold)

Marco,

May I ask, why do (did) you make that assumption?

I mean, Mills’ interpretation/reported results is/are highly unusual. And - as far as I know - there are no independent reports confirming Mills’ results. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

Apologies for communicating with you in the public thread - I tried sending you a private message but I guess you haven't noticed.

I fear you'll find little in the way of support or constructive engagement regarding Mills' theory on this board. Please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions.

I mean, Mills’ interpretation/reported results is/are highly unusual. And - as far as I know - there are no independent reports confirming Mills’ results. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to first establish the veracity of those results?

Precisely, yes. It's frustrating simply not to see any other lab replicating or, at least, trying to replicate these experiment and publish their results with spectrums. Has someone found any publication that I can finally read?

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

That's okay. No one else has been able to replicate those results either.

In this thread, we have seen several people use the word "exact" when they meant. I assume you are using the word "exact" in that way as well, because what you have written makes no sense otherwise.

Do you reject Newtonian mechanics because there is no closed-form solution for the three-body problem?

You hit the problem, Clinger! The three-body has an EXACT solution, using numerical methods (iterations), and I mean EXACT speaking about that the numerical result derived by the formula replicate EXACTLY the measurable one. Yet, these kind of math trick is very similar to the iterative methods used by all the QM methods to calculate the energy levels of atoms and molecules. But, in this case, the "solution" is only the final convergence of the numerical method (pointing to the lower energy level of a multidiminesional potential surface) and, IT NOT COINCIDE with the experimental one. There is ALWASY the so-called "correlation error", as my old professor Sironi said to us.

I mean, another time: THIS is the main problem. If (assuming) I could use the most powerful supercomputer, the actual QM model can't simulate in the right way the behaviour of atom and molecules, denying to us to have the possibility to exactly forecast any physico-chemical event. We can only continue to make "better approximations", but, the "correlation error" is always present.

The three body problem, beeing solved, just permitted us to explore space. So, Newtonian Mechanics works!

Apologies for communicating with you in the public thread - I tried sending you a private message but I guess you haven't noticed.

I fear you'll find little in the way of support or constructive engagement regarding Mills' theory on this board. Please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions.

For "please check your private messages for my suggestions on where to find more helpful interactions" read "please check your private messages for my suggestions on where you're less likely to find knowledgeable people who challenge Mills, and where such people tend to be shouted down".

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.